Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Good K64, butchered XP2

Subject: [OM] Good K64, butchered XP2
From: Earl Dunbar <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:09:59 -0400
Alert:  long rambling post, but there ARE some questions posed at the end...

Today I received a roll of K64 that Dwayne's in Parson, KS processed; 
they did a great job, apprentling that are good at dodging tornadoes.  I 
hadn't shot K64 in a long time, and this rolled went through an OM-1n, 
with 28/f2.8, 100/f2.8 and 50mm miJ, the latter two with some extension 
for some shots.  I haven't examined all the slides closely yet, but 
yowza, am I happy!  Especially with the 28/2.8, which I bought off the 
auction site for about $10, and even had my shipping refunded due to 
some foul-ups by the seller's teenage worker while the seller was on 
holiday.  I don't have a scanner to do a good scan and post, but once I 
do (after reading through dozens of archived posts on scanning!), I'll 
get some shots up, maybe even on my blog which is as yet unpublished.  
Subjects were wild chives with gloriously curly tops, boring shots of a 
peaceful Lake Ontario, and red, er  RED tulips in our back yard.

But speaking of scanning... I had shot some Ilford XP2 in a Clint-CLAed 
SP, and had it processed locally.  I ordered develop only and high res 
scan... "16-base" scans, whatever that means.  The resulting JPGs are 
anywhere from 2.5 to 4.3MB.  Sadly, many frames were scratched on the 
base side, and the scratches got worse as the roll "progressed", and 
we're not talking an identical scratch on each frame.  I'm talking 
scratches that seem to "move" and make random patterns.  I am NOT 
happy.  I was trying to "buy local".  The shop where I dropped off the 
film had to send it to its parent shop (I think), as the satellite store 
doesn't scan, only develop and print.  And, this satellite store does 
OPTICAL prints, and I like to support those types of stores.

But I also noticed that the negative sleeves bore the logo of yet a 3rd 
party, one of the oldest extant photo stores in Rochester, and 
supposedly one of high quality. 

So, I am going to get my money back for this job.  This was XP I had 
rolled myself from bulk, onto new Kalt cartridges.  I gave several rolls 
to my daughter (in another city) who has not experienced any scratches, 
so I'm certain it wasn't a problem with the cartridges, my technique, etc.

And I'll look for another lab for the XP2 I have remaining, but from now 
one I think I'll be re-establishing my darkroom and do all my own film 
processing with traditional b&w materials.

Sorry for the long post, but I had to vent a bit.  But I do have two 
questions:

1.  What accounts for the variable file sizes of the XP2 scans?  I mean, 
every frame is a full 35mm frame.  Is this related to overall negative 
density, or with scanning technique or settings?
2.   I assume that since I got JPGs, and from a non-custom service, I 
really can't judge the dynamic range of the files as being best 
possible.  One some of the shots with wide tonal range, the highlights 
are blown.  Even on the negs they look like they may be blocked under a 
low power loupe, but I can't be totally sure.  Any insight?
3.  If I find that the highlights are actually blown on the negative, 
might this be an indication of exposure error?  Does anyone have 
experience of XP2 doing better when rated higher than 400, which is what 
I used?

TIA, Earl
Now practicing the zone system, as in "no political sniping zone"


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz